A systematic review and meta-analysis of ketamine for the prevention of persistent post-surgical pain.

While post-operative pain routinely resolves, persistent post-surgical pain (PPSP) is common in certain surgeries; it causes disability, lowers quality of life and has economic consequences. The objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to evaluate the effectiveness of ketamine in reducing the prevalence and severity of PPSP and to assess safety associated with its use. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE through December 2012 for articles in any language. We included randomized, controlled trials in adults in which ketamine was administered perioperatively via any route. Seventeen studies, the majority of which administered ketamine intravenously, met all inclusion criteria. The overall risk of developing PPSP was not significantly reduced at any time point in the ketamine group vs. placebo, nor did comparisons of pain severity scores reach statistical significance. Sensitivity analysis of exclusively intravenous ketamine studies included in this meta-analysis demonstrated statistically significant reductions in risk of developing PPSP at 3 and 6 months (P = 0.01 and P = 0.04, respectively). Adverse event rates were similar between ketamine and placebo groups. The study data from our review are heterogeneous and demonstrate efficacy of intravenously administered ketamine only in comparison with placebo. Highly variable timing and dosing of ketamine in these studies suggest that no unifying effective regimen has emerged. Future research should focus on clinically relevant outcomes, should stratify patients with pre-existing pain and possible central sensitization and should enroll sufficiently large numbers to account for loss to follow-up in long-term studies.

Single-dose intravenous paracetamol or propacetamol for prevention or treatment of postoperative pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Paracetamol is the most commonly prescribed analgesic for the treatment of acute pain. The efficacy and safety of i.v. formulations of paracetamol is unclear. We performed a systematic search (multiple databases, bibliographies, any language, to May 2010) for single-dose, randomized, controlled clinical trials of propacetamol or i.v. paracetamol for acute postoperative pain in adults or children. Thirty-six studies involving 3896 patients were included. For the primary outcome, 37% of patients (240/367) receiving propacetamol or i.v. paracetamol experienced at least 50% pain relief over 4 h compared with 16% (68/527) receiving placebo (number needed to treat=4.0; 95% confidence interval, 3.5-4.8). The proportion of patients in propacetamol or i.v. paracetamol groups experiencing at least 50% pain relief diminished over 6 h. Patients receiving propacetamol or paracetamol required 30% less opioid over 4 h and 16% less opioid over 6 h than those receiving placebo. However, this did not translate to a reduction in opioid-induced adverse events (AEs). Similar comparisons between propacetamol or i.v. paracetamol and active comparators were either not statistically significant, not clinically significant, or both. AEs occurred at similar rates with propacetamol or i.v. paracetamol and placebo. However, pain on infusion occurred more frequently in those receiving propacetamol compared with placebo (23% vs 1%). A single dose of either propacetamol or i.v. paracetamol provides around 4 h of effective analgesia for about 37% of patients with acute postoperative pain. Both formulations are associated with few AEs, although patients receiving propacetamol have a higher incidence of pain on infusion.

Mu-opioid antagonists for opioid-induced bowel dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OBD) is characterized by constipation, incomplete evacuation, bloating, and increased gastric reflux. OBD occurs both acutely and chronically, in multiple disease states, resulting in increased morbidity and reduced quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of traditional and peripherally active opioid antagonists versus conventional interventions for OBD. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and EMBASE in January 2007. Additional reports were identified from the reference lists of retrieved papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials that investigated the efficacy of mu-opioid antagonists for OBD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted by two independent review authors and included demographic variables, diagnoses, interventions, efficacy, and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-three studies met inclusion criteria and provided data on 2871 opioid antagonist-treated patients. The opioid antagonists investigated were alvimopan (nine studies), methylnaltrexone (six), naloxone (seven), and nalbuphine (one). Meta-analysis demonstrated that methylnaltrexone and alvimopan were better than placebo in reversing opioid-induced increased gastrointestinal transit time and constipation, and that alvimopan appears to be safe and efficacious in treating postoperative ileus. The incidence of adverse events with opioid antagonists was similar to placebo and generally reported as mild-to-moderate. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Insufficient evidence exists for the safety or efficacy of naloxone or nalbuphine in the treatment of OBD. Long-term efficacy and safety of any of the opioid antagonists is unknown, as is the incidence or nature of rare adverse events. Alvimopan and methylnaltrexone both show promise in treating OBD, but further data will be required to fully assess their place in therapy.

Systemic administration of local anesthetic agents to relieve neuropathic pain.

BACKGROUND: Lidocaine, mexiletine, tocainide, and flecainide are local anesthetics which give an analgesic effect when administered orally or parenterally. Early reports described the use of intravenous lidocaine or procaine to relieve cancer and postoperative pain (Keats 1951; Gilbert 1951; De Clive-Lowe 1958; Bartlett 1961). Interest reappeared decades later when patient series and clinical trials reported that parenteral lidocaine and its oral analogs tocainide, mexiletine, and flecainide relieved neuropathic pain in some patients (Boas 1982; Lindblom 1984; Petersen 1986; Dunlop 1988; Bach 1990; Awerbuch 1990). With the recent publication of clinical trials with high quality standards, we have reviewed the use of systemic lidocaine and its oral analogs in neuropathic pain to update our knowledge, to measure their benefit and harm, and to better define their role in therapy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate pain relief and adverse effect rates between systemic local anesthetic-type drugs and other control interventions. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE (1966 through 15 May 2004), EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2002), Cancer Lit (through 15 December 2002), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2nd Quarter, 2004), System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE), and LILACS, from January 1966 through March 2001. We also hand searched conference proceedings, textbooks, original articles and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials with random allocation, that were double blinded, with a parallel or crossover design. The control intervention was a placebo or an analgesic drug for neuropathic pain from any cause. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We collected efficacy and safety data from all published and unpublished trials. We calculated combined effect sizes using continuous and binary data for pain relief and adverse effects as primary and secondary outcome measurements, respectively. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-two controlled clinical trials met the selection criteria; two were duplicate articles. The treatment drugs were intravenous lidocaine (16 trials), mexiletine (12 trials), lidocaine plus mexiletine sequentially (one trial), and tocainide (one trial). Twenty-one trials were crossover studies, and nine were parallel. Lidocaine and mexiletine were superior to placebo [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -11; 95% CI: -15 to -7; P <0.00001], and limited data showed no difference in efficacy (WMD = -0.6; 95% CI: -7 to 6), or adverse effects versus carbamazepine, amantadine, gabapentin or morphine. In these trials, systemic local anesthetics were safe, with no deaths or life-threatening toxicities. Sensitivity analysis identified data distribution in three trials as a probable source of heterogeneity. There was no publication bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Lidocaine and oral analogs were safe drugs in controlled clinical trials for neuropathic pain, were better than placebo, and were as effective as other analgesics. Future trials should enroll specific diseases and test novel lidocaine analogs with better toxicity profiles. More emphasis is necessary on outcomes measuring patient satisfaction to assess if statistically significant pain relief is clinically meaningful.